CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 14 décembre 1993

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Colozza case delivered on 12 February 1985 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against Italy lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 May 1980 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Giacinto Colozza, an Italian national, who complained of his conviction in absentia;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 18 July 1983;        Recalling that in the course of the proceedings the Court was informed of Mr Colozza's death and that the status of applicant was transferred to his widow;        Whereas in its judgment of 12 February 1985 the Court unanimously:        - held that there had been a violation of Article 6,      paragraph 1 (art. 6-1);        - held that the respondent State was to pay to Mrs Colozza      6 000 000 Italian lire by way of just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of Italy to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 12 February 1985, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Italy gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Having satisfied itself that the Government of Italy has paid Mrs Colozza the sum provided for in the judgment of 12 February 1985,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Italy, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                   Appendix to Resolution DH (93) 64           Information provided by the Government of Italy            during the examination of the Colozza case                   by the Committee of Ministers        Article 183bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as modified by Section 1 of Law No. 22 of 23 January 1989, has reformed the Italian regulations in respect of restitution of time ("restituzione nel termine") and anticipated the regulations laid down in Article 175 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in such a manner as to align these regulations with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights as developed by the European Court of Human Rights.   Article 183bis, accordingly, lays down in its second paragraph that restitution of time in order to appeal against an in absentia judgment may be requested, not only in cases involving exceptional cirumstances or force majeure, but also when the accused can produce evidence that he did not have effective knowledge of the judgment in question.   However, this right cannot be exercised when the defence counsel has already submitted an appeal or when it is his fault that the accused has not been able to gain knowledge of the judgment or - following notification of the absentia judgment according to the procedure prescribed for accused persons who are untraceable ("irreperibili") - when the applicant has voluntarily put himself in such a position as not to be able to be notified of the proceedings.        Considering the aim of the new regulations and the increased willingness demonstrated by the Italian courts to take into account the requirements of the Convention (see, inter alia, the judgment of the Court of Cassation, First Criminal Section, of 12 May 1993 in the Medrano case), the Italian Government is of the opinion that the Italian courts will not fail to respect the principles laid down in the Colozza case in their application of the new regulations and, in particular, to ensure that a person in a situation like that of Mr Colozza is not left with the burden of proving that he was not seeking to evade justice or that his absence was due to force majeure.